Shooting at Fort Meade’s visitor gate for NSA

| February 14, 2018 | 29 Comments

According to Fox5DC, Fort Meade authorities have one person in custody after a shooting at the vistors’ gate serving the NSA facility there;

Aerial images from SkyFOX shows a black SUV with heavy body damage that apparently crashed into white security barriers near the gate. The force of the crash pushed one of the security barriers into a fence. Bullet holes cold be seen in the windshield of the SUV.

The Associated Press first reported that one person was in custody. They also reported that Fort Meade garrison spokeswoman Cheryl Phillips confirmed by phone that one person was injured in the shooting outside the base and was taken to hospital.

Category: Breaking News

Comments (29)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bobo says:

    For a small police force, they don’t mess around. Second shooting at a vehicle gate in a few years.

    • 1610desig says:

      I believe those were the two trannies in a stolen vehicle…they made dumb decisions at ever turn so to speak..perhaps another wrong turn in this case

    • Hondo says:

      Both correct. And if I remember correctly from the last time I was near an entrance to the NSA sub-compound on Meade (different guard force and access perimeter/controls than the rest of Ft Meade proper), there are very prominent signs advising visitors that “USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS AUTHORIZED” at all entry points to the NSA sub-compound.

  2. DragonFire says:

    I investigated someone who in 1982/1983 who tried to get into the parking lot at Ft. Meade with a literal van load of firearms and ammunition. They were all queued up to get through the gate and one of the guards was walking up the line of vehicles to look at ID and he noticed that long guns were visible and that one of the passengers had a poorly concealed revolver. Sp pulled his own gun, calls for backup, and when they searched the persons and vehicle, they each have on a concealed pistol or revolver, and in the vehicle was quite a large assortments of firearms and ammunition, the inside the van that had constructed a bunker through the use of sandbags and steel plates. The state had to prosecute, as the base guard was just a few feet outside of the bright line that defined the perimeters of the base, and everybody got convicted (5 people) and 3 of those people were able to get the case expunged after a protracted post-conviction period. Several decades later two of the defendants (in Maryland) were trying to get their state license to carry renewed and their decades of plea bargain and 5 years in prison came up, which they assumed had been lost, but since all of the states went a little crazy with felony conviction records they both popped up on radar and I went after one of them becuse he was not merely a phoney veteran, phony SEAL, phone Ranger, Raider, and so on, but he has used his fake veteran status to rip off a huge number of peole in my profession, and I was performign a due dilligence on his prior to my firm gifting him with a brand new electric wheelchair and a brand new wheelchair van with wheelchair lift.

  3. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Interesting situation here. I’m talking about the use of deadly force by security. Need more facts.

  4. Graybeard says:

    R-front tire/wheel seems to be gone/damaged. I see two clear bullet holes in the windshield. Side air bags deployed.

    I’m reading an intentional at-speed or above-speed approach to the security gate with failure to slow/stop, resulting in use-of-force response.

    Future revelations may prove interesting.

  5. OWB says:

    National news org reporting on local AM radio earlier this morning said, ” Reports are that all gates at Fort Meade are closed but the facility remains open.” OK, which is it?

    And they wonder why we have such a low opinion of them and their “facts?”

    Very glad the threat was neutralized.

  6. MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

    Let’s hope the security detail had a successful “impromptu inter-body ventilation exercise” with the perps.

  7. Bill R. says:

    I know of at least two uses of deadly force at Selfridge ANGB near my home. I’m pretty sure they were civilian gate guards. They don’t mess around.

  8. MSGT Richard Deiters USMC(Retired) says:

    When I was Statione QUANTICO, VA., the small airfield had a hanger area for some helps that was surrounded by 10 or 12 foot fence that razor wire at top. On the fence was posted a sign stating that ‘DEADLY FORCE WAS AUTHORIZED’. The hanger was the Maintenance section for the PRESIDENTIAL HELOs.
    The HELOs on duty were stationed closer to DC so the flight time the WHITE HOUSE was shorter.

  9. Claw says:

    Anybody taking bets on whether or not Spec8 Moerk shows up at the gate guards awards ceremony looking to pick up a stray ARCOM or two?

    Just as an aside, the last time I looked at the Blue Falcon’s LinkedIn profile, she was listing Operations NCO at Brigade Headquarters as her current job.

    So maybe she got shit-canned as the company 1SG and is now is charge of maps and grease pencils at the S-3 shop?

  10. The Other Whitey says:

    What I can’t wrap my head around is what exactly this idiot thought he would accomplish by ramming a heavily-guarded gate marked with signs that clearly state that you *will* be shot if you screw with it.

  11. farmgirl with a mosin nagant says:

    Currently apparently the FBI is saying there’s no link to terrorism.

    I’m starting to wonder what the current definition of ‘terrorism’ is that everyone’s working from; when it happened, the Oklahoma bombing was called domestic terrorism. Wouldn’t an attempt by a home-grown unit, even if no links to Islamic extremists (or whatever we’re calling them these days) still be terrorism?

    Granted that I have no evidence to say that it is a home-grown unit or anything other than drunk dumbasses, say, but I have seen an awful lot of cases which would have been called terrorism 10 or more years ago swept away as ‘not terrorism’.

    My mathematical mind is uneasy and wishes to discover the adjustment to parameters and better understand.

    • Alberich says:

      Terrorism is defined by motive, at least in the statutes it is. If you’re trying to change the behavior of a government, or a population, or to retaliate for government conduct, it’s terrorism. (Unless, that is, you’re a government yourself, in which case it’s called “war.”)

      McVeigh’s main motive was to retaliate for Waco and Ruby Ridge, or at least that’s what he said. He wasn’t charged with terrorism though.

      Until we know something about the motive of the driver, we won’t be able to say if it was terrorism.

      • farmgirl with a mosin nagant says:

        Thank you for your explanation; clear and concise as always! I appreciate the clarification.

      • OWB says:

        Yep. The act itself is what defines a terrorist act as terrorism. Doesn’t matter who is doing it or what is driving their desire to commit mass havoc/death. Just charge the killer with murder and get on with things.

        When the commission of the act is foiled by someone preventing it from occurring or the terrorist fails to get it right for some other reason, the crime of attempted murder AND terrorism may take the terrorist off the street faster and longer. Depending.

        • Alberich says:

          Federal definitions of domestic and international terrorism are here. The intent, rather than the specific act, makes a given act of violence terrorism.

          With the right intent, any “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” can be terrorism.

  12. jeff monroe says:

    UMM not very dang smart !!

  13. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The newsies are taking the FBI’s lead and discounting terrorism. Right now, the van occupants are believed to be run-of-the-mill lunkheads who exited where they should not have exited and compounded their error by trying to get the hell out of where they should not have been.

    • OWB says:

      Sounds like they may have been up to something they should not have been doing but Meade may not have been the target. Otherwise, why not just stop when you realize you are in the wrong lane and don’t really want to go into Meade?

      Still have a lot of questions, none of which may ever be answered or do I really have a need to know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *